Return-Path: Received: from rly-yc01.mail.aol.com (rly-yc01.mail.aol.com [172.18.205.144]) by air-yc02.mail.aol.com (v121.4) with ESMTP id MAILINYC23-1b447ca8eec1d8; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 06:26:46 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-yc01.mail.aol.com (v121.4) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYC16-1b447ca8eec1d8; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 06:26:39 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1JVmKN-0005Qp-Um for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:25:59 +0000 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1JVmKN-0005Qg-7l for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:25:59 +0000 Received: from mout1.freenet.de ([195.4.92.91]) by relay2.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JVmKK-0004i2-4r for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:25:59 +0000 Received: from [195.4.92.22] (helo=12.mx.freenet.de) by mout1.freenet.de with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JVmKI-0002tF-QC for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:25:54 +0100 Received: from f051065056.adsl.alicedsl.de ([78.51.65.56]:1096 helo=[192.168.0.111]) by 12.mx.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID dl4yhf@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.69 #10) id 1JVmKI-0005AR-K8 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:25:54 +0100 Message-ID: <47CA8EC1.2040300@freenet.de> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:25:53 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_B=FCscher?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <47CA6104.25600.355B36@localhost> <47CA86FF.16328.C9BA43@localhost> In-Reply-To: <47CA86FF.16328.C9BA43@localhost> X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=0.333 Subject: Re: LF: 136: Germans? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: listenair ; SPF_helo : n X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: listenair ; SPF_822_from : n X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Hello Mike, Thanks for the information. QRSS wouldn't be a problem, I was thinking about normal CW like in the good old day.. > (30kHz low of the > 'recommended centre of activity') to avoid the DCF39 QRM. That would put you outside my RX passband, and dangerously close to Loran ;-) Joking aside, 30 Hz below the 137.7 kHz is a clearer spot. DF6NM's RDF-grabber nicely shows the spectral nulls of the new QRM (the violet QRM on the upper end of the band from Burg, and the red QRM on the lower end from Budapest). > Is there a > better part of the band at your end? Should we be discussing a > quieter QRSS sub-band nearer 137.0kHz? > > I don't think so, since for TA/DX there are enough narrow clear spots for QRSS10...QRSS60 (see note above). For traditional CW, 136.8 ... 137.0 seems to be the quietest place (at least in this part of EU) which offers 100...200 Hz bandwidth for easier listening. > Does the QRM affect your reception of USA DX? Do we need a new DX sub- > band? > > The DCF QRM does affect it bit, but the effect of (very) local QRM is more dramatic, and very broad-band. Almost impossible to avoid (without a few hundred meters of cable or UHF link). A new DX sub-band would not cure this problem, at least not here. GL and hope to CU later, 73, Wolf .